2025 (5) TMI 1858 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - assessee has raised share capital/ share premium from 7 entities/ persons - HELD THAT -Subscribers submitted before the ld. AO all the details as are called for. Similarly before the ld. CIT(A) also all these details were also available however this were not considered by the First Appellate authority. We have examined these details extensively and find that the assessee has raised money from the sister concerns/related parties who were having sufficient resources and the money was also raised by the assessee for genuine reasons in order to meet the conditions of the bank to release the loan funds as margin money. We are fully satisfied that the assessee has proved the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions and therefore we are inclined to set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and direct the ld. AO to delete the addition. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal are:

- Whether the delay of 107 days in filing the appeal by the assessee should be condoned on grounds of genuine and bonafide reasons.

- Whether the addition of Rs. 69 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, on account of unexplained cash credit relating to share capital and share premium, was justified.

- Whether the assessee satisfactorily proved the identity, creditworthiness of the share subscribers, and genuineness of the transactions concerning the share capital and share premium raised from related parties.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Delay in Filing Appeal and Condonation Application

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Income Tax Act and judicial precedents allow condonation of delay in filing appeals if the delay is shown to be for sufficient cause and bonafide reasons.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the delay was attributed to the critical illness of the person entrusted with filing the appeal, who was unable to attend office for an extended period. The assessee supported this with an affidavit from a company director.

Key evidence and findings: Affidavit dated 26.08.2024 from the director of the company explaining the health issues of the responsible person.

Application of law to facts: Considering the genuine health-related reasons and the bonafide nature of the delay, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to condone the delay.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Department opposed condonation, but the Tribunal found the reasons sufficient to admit the appeal.

Conclusions: The delay of 107 days was condoned and the appeal admitted for adjudication.

Addition on Account of Unexplained Cash Credit under Section 68

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 68 of the Income Tax Act requires that when an assessee receives any sum as share capital or share premium, the identity, creditworthiness of the investor, and genuineness of the transaction must be satisfactorily established. Failure to do so results in addition as unexplained cash credit.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the entire record, including the evidences and replies filed by the assessee before the AO and CIT(A). It found that the AO and CIT(A) had ignored or overlooked the detailed evidences furnished, including bank statements, PAN details, audited accounts, income tax returns of the share subscribers, and replies to notices issued under sections 131, 133(6), and 142(1) of the Act.

Key evidence and findings: The assessee raised share capital and share premium from seven entities/persons, all related or sister concerns. The assessee furnished documentary evidence including:

• Bank sanction letter for loan amounting to Rs. 1.21 crores.
• Purchase deed and lease agreement related to property acquisition.
• Replies to statutory notices with detailed information about the share subscribers (names, PANs, bank statements, audited accounts, and ITRs).
• Replies from share subscribers to notices under section 133(6) confirming their investments.

The AO framed the assessment under section 144 without proper examination or verification of these evidences, merely observing non-compliance with notices, which was factually incorrect as the replies were duly acknowledged by the Department.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principles under section 68 and concluded that the assessee had adequately proved:

• Identity of the investors (share subscribers).
• Creditworthiness of these investors.
• Genuineness of the transactions, as the funds were raised for legitimate business purposes (property purchase and margin money to secure bank loans).

Treatment of competing arguments: The AO and CIT(A) rejected the evidences without due consideration, issuing cryptic orders. The Tribunal criticized this approach and emphasized the need for proper examination of evidences and replies.

Conclusions: The addition of Rs. 69 lakhs was not sustainable. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and directed deletion of the addition.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal held:

"Considering these facts and documents, we are fully satisfied that the assessee has proved the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions, and therefore, we are inclined to set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and direct the ld. AO to delete the addition."

Core principles established include:

• Delay in filing appeal can be condoned if shown to be for bonafide and sufficient reasons supported by credible evidence.
• Under section 68, the burden lies on the assessee to prove identity, creditworthiness of the investor, and genuineness of the transaction; mere non-compliance with notices is not sufficient ground for addition if evidence is furnished and acknowledged.
• Assessing authorities and appellate authorities must consider and examine evidences and replies on record and cannot pass cryptic orders ignoring material submissions.

Final determinations:

• The delay of 107 days in filing the appeal was condoned.
• The addition of Rs. 69 lakhs under section 68 was deleted as the assessee successfully established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share capital and share premium transactions.
• The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.